HELL

[hedrick]

The Catholic creed declares that those outside of the Catholic faith are destined to eternal hell fire so what does they say for Protestantism? Many Protestants say that the Pope is the false prophet or the anti-Christ so what does that say for Catholicism? What does it say for non baptised babies? I thought the promise was for the generations of the baptised, yet whether a church says it or not they imply because they believe that water baptism is a must in their church by God.

Sorry, but Catholics don't say that. Indeed recent popes have suggested that even atheists can be saved.

The anti-Christ business is pretty unusual these days.

The current Catholic position on baptism not so clear. E.g. there is "baptism of desire," which includes anyone who would have been baptized had they known it was a requirement.

 

[MennoSota]

.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

Again, Zoroastrianism has been essentially dead for milleniums and it was not a great influence on Western culture. It had its niche in Persia.

 

[Albion]

Do you believe that non baptised infants go to hell?

No. And the view of most of Christianity is that they do not, which is why I asked why you would call it the "orthodox" belief.

By now, I know that I am unlikely to get an answer to that question.

 

[Andrew]

No. And the view of most of Christianity is that they do not, which is why I asked why you would call it the "orthodox" belief.

By now, I know that I am unlikely to get an answer to that question.

Catholicism believes that all non baptised peoples go to hell. My dad believes this because that's what he has been taught growing up, he is in fear for my niece who is 5 years old and hasn't been baptised because her father a JW and atheist (go figure) will not allow it.
Maybe everything is just backwards where I live and you all think I am just making all of this up lol but I am not and it's a miniature epidemic here, please be patient

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[hedrick]

Catholicism believes that all non baptised peoples go to hell. My dad believes this because that's what he has been taught growing up, he is in fear for my niece who is 5 years old and hasn't been baptised because her father a JW and atheist (go figure) will not allow it.
Maybe everything is just backwards where I live and you all think I am just making all of this up lol but I am not and it's a miniature epidemic here, please be patient

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

No, it does not. Here's the section from the Catechism: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3M.HTM. Note the various qualfications there. To be really a problem a person would need to know that it's necessary and then refuse it. This would not be the case of your niece.

It's easy for someone to be mistaken about the teachings of the Catholic Church, or any church. I'd hate to think what my Sunday School kids would say if given a quiz on what we taught. Sometimes teachers don't give all the complexities. E.g. they may say "baptism is necessary for salvation," which is in fact the official Catholic position, but not give the qualifications that you'll see in the section of the Catechism I've cited. Or maybe the teacher did but the person didn't quite understand.

 

[Andrew]

No, it does not. Here's the section from the Catechism: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3M.HTM. Note the various qualfications there. To be really a problem a person would need to know that it's necessary and then refuse it. This would not be the case of your niece.

It's easy for someone to be mistaken about the teachings of the Catholic Church, or any church. I'd hate to think what my Sunday School kids would say if given a quiz on what we taught. Sometimes teachers don't give all the complexities. E.g. they may say "baptism is necessary for salvation," which is in fact the official Catholic position, but not give the qualifications that you'll see in the section of the Catechism I've cited. Or maybe the teacher did but the person didn't quite understand.

Thanks for the info, I would like to show this to my father in hopes that it gives him peace

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

In Hoffmann's defense, you'll likely find each parish priest is confused as to what the RC officially teaches. The RC catechism is purposefully obtuse so that nothing is straightforward. In this way the parishioners are left in reliance upon the church to give clarification. It's quite a scam if you ask me.

No, it does not. Here's the section from the Catechism: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3M.HTM. Note the various qualfications there. To be really a problem a person would need to know that it's necessary and then refuse it. This would not be the case of your niece.

It's easy for someone to be mistaken about the teachings of the Catholic Church, or any church. I'd hate to think what my Sunday School kids would say if given a quiz on what we taught. Sometimes teachers don't give all the complexities. E.g. they may say "baptism is necessary for salvation," which is in fact the official Catholic position, but not give the qualifications that you'll see in the section of the Catechism I've cited. Or maybe the teacher did but the person didn't quite understand.

 

[Andrew]

In Hoffmann's defense, you'll likely find each parish priest is confused as to what the RC officially teaches. The RC catechism is purposefully obtuse so that nothing is straightforward. In this way the parishioners are left in reliance upon the church to give clarification. It's quite a scam if you ask me.

I suppose that if Catholicism is at windows 10 my dad is still at windows 95... they really should make regular mentions as to where the Catechism stands when it comes to things like baptism. There is no reason why my dad should assume the outdated position of baptism seeing that according to the vatican website "God has mercy on the dead" regardless of baptism or non baptism -both being 'just' in Catholic funeral rites. Thankfully we haven't been to an infant funeral nor a non baptised funeral to learn this. Again I thank hedrick for the info

 

[Pedrito]

DHoffman, Post #1:

A church that believes that a baby who was unwanted and disposed of and died the day it was born goes straight to "hell" is no friend of mine.

Albion, Post #2:

What church is ruled out then?

Maybe that’s the whole point.

==============================================================================================

I have been suggesting for some time that the original Apostolic Gospel be given prominence by determining what the Holy Bible natively says (instead of it being twisted by conflicting church doctrines being retrofitted into it).

Once that is done, each post-Apostolic doctrine can then be examined for acceptability (proven inspiration from God), and either accepted with confidence or soundly rejected.

But that approach has not proven acceptable, for a possible variety of reasons.

==============================================================================================

But DHoffman and Albion in combination, have presented us with a new approach.

1. Make a list of every church (denomination, sub-denomination, “independent” church, and even “cult”,) that you can think of. Keep the list flexible. Add others as they come to mind.

2. Identify each “church doctrine” that was defined (made orthodox) after the “Nicene Creed” of 381AD.

3. For each of those doctrines, draw a strike-out line through every church or group on the list that teaches that doctrine. (Unless already crossed out.)

4. See which churches or groups (if any) are left, once that is done. (Add to the list if necessary.)

==============================================================================================

The survivors can then be investigated in more depth to determine which most closely represents native Biblical teaching – God’s true revelation.

Wouldn’t that give us a clearly definitive result?


Who would be willing (brave enough) to take that on, and let us know what they find?


==============================================================================================


(That willing person should also be on the lookout for the deliberate use of artificial wording to translate Greek and Hebrew words (especially what Jesus was saying to His countrymen Jews). E,g. The use of the artificial word “hell” to translate “the Valley of Hinnom” (“gay hinnom”). “The Valley of Hinnom” was the large rubbish dump that served the entire city of Jerusalem. (“Gehenna” is simply a distorted Greek transliteration of the Hebrew “gay hinnom”. And Jesus wasn't talking in Greek, anyway.) Jesus’ hearers knew “the Valley of Hinnom” meant “the rubbish dump that annihilates everything which is thrown into it”. The original transliteration into Greek did not change that meaning. There was not even a hint of torture, or of continuation of existence.)

 

[MennoSota]

DHoffman, Post #1:


Albion, Post #2:


Maybe that’s the whole point.

==============================================================================================

I have been suggesting for some time that the original Apostolic Gospel be given prominence by determining what the Holy Bible natively says (instead of it being twisted by conflicting church doctrines being retrofitted into it).

Once that is done, each post-Apostolic doctrine can then be examined for acceptability (proven inspiration from God), and either accepted with confidence or soundly rejected.

But that approach has not proven acceptable, for a possible variety of reasons.

==============================================================================================

But DHoffman and Albion in combination, have presented us with a new approach.

1. Make a list of every church (denomination, sub-denomination, “independent” church, and even “cult”,) that you can think of. Keep the list flexible. Add others as they come to mind.

2. Identify each “church doctrine” that was defined (made orthodox) after the “Nicene Creed” of 381AD.

3. For each of those doctrines, draw a strike-out line through every church or group on the list that teaches that doctrine. (Unless already crossed out.)

4. See which churches or groups (if any) are left, once that is done. (Add to the list if necessary.)

==============================================================================================

The survivors can then be investigated in more depth to determine which most closely represents native Biblical teaching – God’s true revelation.

Wouldn’t that give us a clearly definitive result?


Who would be willing (brave enough) to take that on, and let us know what they find?


==============================================================================================


(That willing person should also be on the lookout for the deliberate use of artificial wording to translate Greek and Hebrew words (especially what Jesus was saying to His countrymen Jews). E,g. The use of the artificial word “hell” to translate “the Valley of Hinnom” (“gay hinnom”). “The Valley of Hinnom” was the large rubbish dump that served the entire city of Jerusalem. (“Gehenna” is simply a distorted Greek transliteration of the Hebrew “gay hinnom”. And Jesus wasn't talking in Greek, anyway.) Jesus’ hearers knew “the Valley of Hinnom” meant “the rubbish dump that annihilates everything which is thrown into it”. The original transliteration into Greek did not change that meaning. There was not even a hint of torture, or of continuation of existence.)

The Gospel is the Gospel as God shared in the Bible. There is no other gospel.

 

[Andrew]

DHoffman, Post #1:


Albion, Post #2:


Maybe that’s the whole point.

==============================================================================================

I have been suggesting for some time that the original Apostolic Gospel be given prominence by determining what the Holy Bible natively says (instead of it being twisted by conflicting church doctrines being retrofitted into it).

Once that is done, each post-Apostolic doctrine can then be examined for acceptability (proven inspiration from God), and either accepted with confidence or soundly rejected.

But that approach has not proven acceptable, for a possible variety of reasons.

==============================================================================================

But DHoffman and Albion in combination, have presented us with a new approach.

1. Make a list of every church (denomination, sub-denomination, “independent” church, and even “cult”,) that you can think of. Keep the list flexible. Add others as they come to mind.

2. Identify each “church doctrine” that was defined (made orthodox) after the “Nicene Creed” of 381AD.

3. For each of those doctrines, draw a strike-out line through every church or group on the list that teaches that doctrine. (Unless already crossed out.)

4. See which churches or groups (if any) are left, once that is done. (Add to the list if necessary.)

==============================================================================================

The survivors can then be investigated in more depth to determine which most closely represents native Biblical teaching – God’s true revelation.

Wouldn’t that give us a clearly definitive result?


Who would be willing (brave enough) to take that on, and let us know what they find?


==============================================================================================


(That willing person should also be on the lookout for the deliberate use of artificial wording to translate Greek and Hebrew words (especially what Jesus was saying to His countrymen Jews). E,g. The use of the artificial word “hell” to translate “the Valley of Hinnom” (“gay hinnom”). “The Valley of Hinnom” was the large rubbish dump that served the entire city of Jerusalem. (“Gehenna” is simply a distorted Greek transliteration of the Hebrew “gay hinnom”. And Jesus wasn't talking in Greek, anyway.) Jesus’ hearers knew “the Valley of Hinnom” meant “the rubbish dump that annihilates everything which is thrown into it”. The original transliteration into Greek did not change that meaning. There was not even a hint of torture, or of continuation of existence.)

Excellent idea! Btw I completely forgot all about the garbage heap reference. Must have been years ago but I do remember "Gehenna" in my studies. I need further study indeed and as a genuine pure blood gentile I must encourage that we all study the possibility of being lost in translation and not just so easily acceptive of ancient church dogmas that have been forced on us whether or not they hold weight.
So much of the English-language has lost it's recognition just in the past century that it may be a quite important necessity to cross reverse-examine (so to speak) the language as it relates to the church teachings some 1500 years ago.
As for unbaptised babies going to "hell"... should I assume they all go up to Heaven? If so, what churches/denomination agree with it?

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[atpollard]

Excellent idea! Btw I completely forgot all about the garbage heap reference. Must have been years ago but I do remember "Gehenna" in my studies. I need further study indeed and as a genuine pure blood gentile I must encourage that we all study the possibility of being lost in translation and not just so easily acceptive of ancient church dogmas that have been forced on us whether or not they hold weight.
So much of the English-language has lost it's recognition just in the past century that it may be a quite important necessity to cross reverse-examine (so to speak) the language as it relates to the church teachings some 1500 years ago.
As for unbaptised babies going to "hell"... should I assume they all go up to Heaven? If so, what churches/denomination agree with it?

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

Should Christians reverse our position on abortion?
It seems a tool for salvation as you describe God and babies.

 

[Andrew]

Should Christians reverse our position on abortion?
It seems a tool for salvation as you describe God and babies.

Just saying, according the mainstream broad view and understanding of hell, all aborted babies report to hell because they are sin in the womb and since we cannot ritually baptised after a week on earth -God sends them or maybe 'yikes' has predestined them for hell.
Do I believe this for one bit? You betcha! -NOT
But according to my dad it is so a fact, I have yet to share the updated Catholic position from the website that holds funeral rites as a "maybe" but there are no funerals for the aborted.
How can I convince my dad that 'God is merciful' if he has such a broad view of "hell" which has many different context and reference?
It's an honest question but his reprobate mind is difficult to steer, I believe there is a hell but what church can officially declare that what he and others invision -is ultimately so?

 

[Albion]

Just saying, according the mainstream broad view and understanding of hell, all aborted babies report to hell...

Way, way back when you started this thread, I tried to point out that you are wrong about this. Then I put it to you more directly. I am sorry, therefore, to have you making this patently false claim once again.

I also asked you where you picked up this notion. So what is the answer to that? I think it is that you merely reasoned it out in your own mind, not, however, while having all the facts.

But then to also insist that it is the usual, traditional, or orthodox view that you are referring to puts the disinformation cherry on the top of it! :thumbsdown:

 

[Andrew]

Way, way back when you started this thread, I tried to point out that you are wrong about this. Then I put it to you more directly. I am sorry, therefore, to have you making this patently false claim once again.

I also asked you where you picked up this notion. So what is the answer to that? I think it is that you merely reasoned it out in your own mind, not, however, while having all the facts.

But then to also insist that it is the usual, traditional, or orthodox view that you are referring to puts the disinformation cherry on the top of it! :thumbsdown:

Again I have yet to show my dad the Catholic website that suggest otherwise, as far as he is concerned non baptised babies have no salvation and go to hell because that is what he has been taught.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

Again I have yet to show my dad the Catholic website that suggest otherwise, as far as he is concerned non baptised babies have no salvation and go to hell because that is what he has been taught.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

Seems like you have a great opportunity to correct that thinking on his part.

 

[Andrew]

Seems like you have a great opportunity to correct that thinking on his part.

Amen. I just had the discussion with my father and it was a relief!
I read him the online Vatican position on non baptised babies and Catholic funeral rights and the first think he asked was "by which Pope?" lol classic.
He again told me that he has always been taught "Fire and Brimstone" and when I suggested that there must have been a lack of communication with the church before he said "well they taught the Latin mass in 'Latin' "... he even started speaking latin phrases to me :/
That's sad -but is it not another resurfacing of communication as it was with Wycliff some 500 years ago when he transcribed the Bible into the ENGLISH language for the common English folk to read the word for themselves and not just accept local church dogma?
My dad was totally accepting a 500 year old dogma that non baptised children go to the abysses of hell unless sanctioned by the church (at the time however they were expected to pay for it through indulgence).

It had definitely concerned me as well because I also believed everything my dad told me... so I am thankful and so is he -that we have technology today that allows direct access to information that would otherwise -the lack of - be used for deceit.

Again HUGE relief and thank you all for your patience.


Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

DHoffman, Post #31:

As for unbaptised babies going to "hell"... should I assume they all go up to Heaven? If so, what churches/denomination agree with it?

The answer to the important question above, may lie in simple, clear apostolic teaching.

==============================================================================================

Romans 3:23: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

If there is any doubt that even babies are included in the above, then...

1 Corinthians 15:22 [[emphasis added]: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. That includes babies.

(Following that general, all-embracing statement, Paul focuses on the true church; but that does not diminish or negate the general principle.)

Please note the tenses in 1 Corinthians 15:22. 1. People are dying now because of their association with Adam. That applies to everyone. Babies included. (If people don't understand why that is an oustanding example of God's wisdom, please ask.) 2. At some time in the future, future to us, everyone who has died will be made alive again. By resurrection, we learn elsewhere. Those babies included.

(Check the four core creeds. They all agree. Don't they?)

So what is the point of infant baptism? What do Scripture and Creed say happens to a baby if it tragically dies? What future does that baby have because Jesus died for it?

==============================================================================================

Does Holy Scripture actually say that babies go to heaven or hell depending on whether they are baptised or not?

I suspect that that is the question that bears asking. Not something like, "What do the bickering denominations teach about babies?"

 

[NewCreation435]

I still honestly believe that the orthodox vision of hell is unbiblical and was used in medieval times to draw in pagans -who had no connection to Judaism but had always and already had a superstitious and absurd Zoroastrian belief of a place of unimaginable torture and torment in eternal fire, not of purity reasons but for pure eternal punishment of souls who likewise can never ever be forgiven.
A church that believes that a baby who was unwanted and disposed of and died the day it was born goes straight to "hell" is no friend of mine.
It is rooted in paganism and is not found in proper translation.
We will all as sinners have a PART in the lake of fire lest you believe and accept Christ who defeated death/sheol or stay conformed by the god of this world -the adversary, that lying deceitful devil Satan.
We will be baptised in fire, tried and purified but these scare-tactics-to-convert are very outdated and again, rooted in demonic pagan beliefs and are very dangerous...
Is it not naive to choose false non-biblical narrative to inherit the kingdom out of fear rather than breaking the generational lies apart by teaching the correct translations and true concordance of "death/sheol/'hell'?

https://youtu.be/rvkgRy2KIdg

What I have been taught is that there is an age of accountability. Before this age if a person dies they do not go to hell. This age of accountability is in direct reference to that person's ability to understand right and wrong such as an infant which you described or a person with intellectual disabilities. I don't know what this age of accountability is. I would assume it is different for each person

 

[Albion]

What I have been taught is that there is an age of accountability. Before this age if a person dies they do not go to hell. This age of accountability is in direct reference to that person's ability to understand right and wrong such as an infant which you described or a person with intellectual disabilities. I don't know what this age of accountability is. I would assume it is different for each person

"The problem" is that there is also the matter of Original Sin. It may be a myth that was held by the church through most of its history, but it is suggested by a number of Bible verses. So it if is real, what of those who die before reaching the age of accountability, whatever that age is, but have Original Sin thanks to having been born?

The fact is that much of Christianity never thought that those people were hell-bound anyway, and even the RCC came up with a way to have their cake and eat it too--Limbo. She has more recently junked that teaching.

But the bottom line is that few Christian churches anymore think that hell is the answer and, without having a firm answer about where such children go (because the Bible simply omits such information), think that the Almighty has something in mind for them that is not hell.